Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Proceedings initiated under s.74 of the SGST Act were held without jurisdiction because the show cause notice failed to allege the statutory preconditions of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts for wrongful or excess availment/utilisation of input tax credit; absent these foundational averments, the authority could not assume s.74 jurisdiction. The record showed actual movement of goods and that returns and tax payments were reflected in GSTR-1, GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, and the revenue did not specifically deny these compliances, making any adverse inference unjustified. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition was allowed - HC